We have a pretty comprehensive story about the Atlantean days from Cayce, Ra and other sources.

"In Atlantean land during those periods of early rise of sons of Belial as
oppositions that became more and more materialized as the powers were applied for self-aggrandizement."
This "self-aggrandizement" took the form of the accumulation of wealth and power into the hands of a
very few, with the result being extreme social stratification, where perhaps only a few dozens or hundreds
of beings ruled over millions of slaves. This situation, of course, was unacceptable to the Sons of the Law
of One..."

We find that in those periods there was not a laboring for the sustenance of life (as in the present), but
rather individuals who were children of the Law of One - and some who were the children of Belial (in the early
experience) - were served by automatons, or THINGS, that were retained by individuals or groups to do the labors
of a household, or to cultivate the fields or the like, or to perform the activities of artisans. And it was concerning
these "things" about which much of the disturbing forces grew to be factors to be reckoned with, between the
children of the Law of One and the Sons of Belial.

We can assume the Sons of Belial are the Annunaki?
So who exactly were the "Sons of the Law of One" in Atlantis?

Were they other more "benevolent" Annunaki?
Another group of beings from a different star-system?

-OM- wrote:We can assume the Sons of Belial are the Annunaki?
So who exactly were the "Sons of the Law of One" in Atlantis?

Were they other more "benevolent" Annunaki?
Another group of beings from a different star-system?

Fairly involved story there, which I plan to cover in a future paper. I'll see if I can do a quick summary. (Well, after hitting Preview, maybe not so quick...)

First, you need to understand what Atlantis IS, which I laid the groundwork for in Geochronology. In those days, the oceans were much narrower (the planet expands at the rifts, creating more ocean floor) and there were just 2 major continents. On the larger continent, the All-father, An, established Sumeria, the mother colony (Mu), with its capital city of Eridu (from which we get "Earth"). His sons, Enki and Enlil, were always fighting so he sent Enki (the more trustworthy of the two) to the other continent on the other side of the planet to establish a second mining colony there. Enki took his "floating temple" Abzu (colony ship) and landed it in what we now call South America. Back then Antarctica was equatorial, with the west coast of the Americas wrapping around it, making a single continent that had not yet broken apart from an Earth expansion event.

Enki named the colony after his ship, Abz (Az or Oz), with the "land of Az" being known as Aztlan. Back on the other side of the planet, it became associated with Atlas, becoming a phonetic mix known as "Atlantis." The Greek name for Enki is Poseidon, so that's how the land came to be known as Poseida in that region--Poseidon's land, which is the same as Enki's land, which was Aztlan or Atlantis.

In the early colonization days, we find two continents, Mu and Atlantis, Mu being ruled by Enlil and Atlantis by Enki, on opposite sides of the planet--which were not very far apart, as the Aztlan Ocean was only a few hundred miles wide back then--an easy sail. And so is the stuff that legends are born.

To understand Sumerian history, you need to understand the sibling rivalry of the Annunaki gods, Enki and Enlil. Enki was the first born, and any guy that has a "kid brother" will understand this... Enlil was always jealous of Enki, and did everything he could to get Enki in trouble with his dad, An. Enki would get blamed for everything, and eventually lost his "first born" position to Enlil in the military ranking over a dispute on updating Lulu (the automaton "THINGS" that Cayce refers to) with Neanderthal DNA to make them better servants.

Enlil was your typical warlord type, wanting control and domination over everything. Enki was a scientist and engineer, more like a cross between Mr. Spock and Scotty, thinking more logically than Enlil, wanting to improve production and performance rather than roar commands and stomp around looking important. Enki took pride in his creations, the first Adam and later (after the serpent incident in the garden), Cro-Magnon man. He liked mankind, we were his pride and joy--a super-successful species adapted for the environment. And Enlil despised him--and us--for that.

Enki's first-born son was Marduk, known in Egyptian as Amon-Ra, or just Ra. And he took after his dad, liked humanity and had a good mind--and a somewhat rebellious nature against his uncle Enlil.

As you may have heard, history is written by the victors--and the victors are always portrayed as the "good guys." That is the case here... and if you look at who is now in charge of the planet, are they REALLY the good guys???

Check your mythology, you'll find two things: Enlil was a vengeful and angry god, and was originally tasked with the creation of a slave race to do the mining and servant duties of the Annunaki... he brought into existence mankind, or as they say in the old texts, "he causes to become"--in Hebrew, Jehovah. And He shalt have no other gods before him--particularly his brother, whom he did everything to demonize (quite literally!)

Since Ra is Marduk, let's check other mythology... Ra is also known in adjacent regions as Baal, or in the Norse, Baldur or the Assyrian Bellus or Bel. In Norse mythos, Baldur is a wonderful god and savior of mankind. Stargate gave the Goa'uld Baal a bad name, though according to my sister, was deserving of his demonic attribute because he was "way hotter" than anyone on the Stargate team. And I think you can see how it is not exactly a big jump between "the followers of Bel" to "the followers of Belial." So what's going on here? Everything is backwards? Golly.

Another common technique used by governments to trick people into supporting them and doing their bidding, is to "co-opt" ideas, like government officials doing things under the guise of "patriotism," as they legislate away every freedom and liberty you have. Well, our governments are the descendents of this same bunch of tyrants, and the "tried and true" methods tend to hang on.

The "Law of One" was actually created by Doctor "Bones" Ninkhursag, Annunaki medical officer and sister to Enki and Enlil. Ninkhursag is probably the widest known of the "pro-mankind" goddesses, epitomized by Stargate's ascended Ancient, Oma Desala, "Mother Nature." The original teachings are more like a course at Hogwarts, based on the forbidden knowledge of the "one-ness" of the Universe, that Dewey Larson put in scientific and mathematical terms with his Unity-based Reciprocal System. The idea of "service to others" was based on the idea that, in a system of universal rapport, you are everything and everything is you, so by helping others you are helping yourself--but everyone benefits. Very simple concept, actually.

Enlil grabbed the opportunity to co-opt the Law of One's "service to other" concept--by making "other" refer to the Annunaki, "service to God." This became the basis of a powerful religion for the slave population, the same religion that Edgar Cayce was a strong proponent of. And everything he related was colored by his own beliefs, so when reading Cayce (or any channel), you need to be aware of the unconscious biases to information.

Just like our government officials tell us to "tighten our belts" and live off of 25-cent Ramen Noodle packets as they drive to a $10,000-a-plate political fundraiser extravaganza, Enlil--a lover of luxury and materialism--did the same thing to Enki, accusing him of self-aggrandizement of wealth and power, because Enki and Ninkhursag were trying to teach humanity the forbidden knowledge and create a "Dumbledore's Army" of wizards to stand against Enlil's attempts at global conquest and the total subjugation of the human population. As a result, that magical, forbidden knowledge was considered part of Enki's "demonic" teachings--even though it derives directly from the Organic Law of One.

With this background information, you can easily figure Cayce out on your own, as you read it. Just keep in mind that history being told by one of the victors. But the information is still good, once you have the background to understand it.

A very wise man once said to me,
"Would you pray to God for help, if you knew that God looked like the alien from the movie "Aliens?"

At the time, I assumed he was trying to make a metaphorical point, not a literal point. lol

So my last question is, Were the SMs walking around in their 10-12ft Reptilian form at these times in the past
or
were they appearing in a more human-ized form, like we envision the Greek "gods" looked like?

-OM- wrote:So my last question is, Were the SMs walking around in their 10-12ft Reptilian form at these times in the past
or were they appearing in a more human-ized form, like we envision the Greek "gods" looked like?

An, being one of the Titans, stood closer to 20 feet in height and looked a bit more like Godzilla, without spinal plating. "An" put the "god" in Godzilla!

If you read the stories in ANY religion, you'll find the original pantheon of gods were rather shy, and did not show their faces in public--only to the trusted High Priests, whom were given instructions to pass on to the people. That's why we have these religious orders and hierarchies. If a person saw the face of a god, they would flee in horror or go insane. Given these descriptions, it is probably not very likely the gods were "hot gods" of the Greeks.

Just the other day a local church stopped by to hand out a flyer to something going on at the church, and a picture of Jesus was prominently displayed--not as the scrawny, frail man shown on the Shroud of Turin, but this beefy young dude--they were trying to get younger people interested in the church, so the image was updated. That process is very common throughout history.

Enki, who was probably the nicest and pro-human of all the Annunaki, was also called Oannes, which translates roughly to "the hideous one." Enki showed his face, and look at the rep he got for it. You can't judge a book by its cover.

The SMs understand genetics to a high degree. We've learned that they, like their NWO descendents, chose NOT to reincarnate, but to transfer their consciousness into other bodies--and in those days, custom jobs, like the ones you see in the Egyptian glyphs. Cayce refers to them as "mixtures," because that is what they were, a mixture of critters, just like you'd customize your car or truck with special paint and detailing.

If you want to understand ancient times, look at modern times... not much has changed. We still do, and practice, the same stuff now, as they did then.

Did you know that Adam, prior to the serpent incident, was a giant that stood 15 feet tall? And had "horny skin?" And he was kicked out of the "Guarded Enclosure of E-DIN" at age 8? Religious text depict Adam as a man with a beard... I'm pretty hairy, but did not have a full beard at 8 years of age. As they say, "edited for content."

Since Ra is Marduk, let's check other mythology... Ra is also known in adjacent regions as Baal

Daniel, please help me to understand something here. If Ra was a good guy as your post is implying, and he was known as Baal in nearby regions, why were children sacrificed by fire to him?

When looking the name Baal up, its pretty obvious that this was a 'name' or 'title' used for many 'gods'. Some of these were bad dudes. How are you distinguishing Ra as Baal from all the other bad dudes as various Baals?

as Baal, or in the Norse, Baldur or the Assyrian Bellus or Bel. In Norse mythos, Baldur is a wonderful god and savior of mankind.

Since many gods were referred to as Baal, I'm not so sure the above associations would still hold up. Those are a lot of jumps. If this was the same guy, then simply looking for some similarities and relating links between them isn't going to be good enough. Its one thing if the same dude is described in looks, character, behavior, demands, legends, etc. as the same across different cultures - not one or two things but almost everything. Then one could argue this is the same dude. There are a crapload of differences between the various gods between cultures. If these can't be accounted for and there's not enough evidence of this being the same dude (again, not just a handful of similarities or related links) then this can't be assumed to be the same dude and conclusions drawn of who this was and where he was and whether he's a good or bad guy etc.

I'm concerned about the validity of sources that this kind of historic research is based on. In fact, there's a few things that historical records would have wrong, not only because of "victors writing history" but also because even good people writing historic records with the intention of retaining the facts, did so from their own understanding of those facts. Add the way that legends and stories are carried over (through entertainment like songs in taverns, not official independent record-keepers that weren't paid by the royalty (archetype of victor who wants their version of the story told)). So if something needs spice or change to be entertaining, its changed, because of the purpose for which it was told/carried over. If no compensation for these kind of changes are made, or method for validating their credibility, then why should we take these sources as viable facts?

I have yet to see how the credibility of all these historic records concerning mankind's history are validated. It only seems like a lot of these historic records are read and connections made between things (whether these connections are real or not, they are positioned to be fact because single conclusions are drawn from them instead of a range of possibilities laid out for one's own interpretation).

I'm not saying I have the answers, but I do believe in being a healthy skeptic. No one would want to just exchange one set of unquestioned pictures of what the real story is for another set of unquestioned pictures portraying the same claim - that this is right and that is false.

Check your mythology, you'll find two things: Enlil was a vengeful and angry god, and was originally tasked with the creation of a slave race to do the mining and servant duties of the Annunaki... he brought into existence mankind, or as they say in the old texts, "he causes to become"--in Hebrew, Jehovah. And He shalt have no other gods before him--particularly his brother, whom he did everything to demonize (quite literally!)

I'm sure there's a lot of history to support this supposition, but every belief system in the world demonizes others in various degrees of intensity. Ironically, the majority of belief systems demonizes christianity. I find it interesting how christianity or judaism is used as the favorite examples of religious oppression when there isn't an exception of any other religion that doesn't do the same. Even the gnostic christians go as far as saying that "Jehovah" is pretty much the devil himself. I can understand why a lot of conclusions are drawn from - and a focus is put on - critisizing the interpretation of judaic history. Let's face it, there's a lot of questions that common sense raises about it.

But why can't we use that same common sense before we look for evidence to condemn what we don't agree with or have the answers to? I mean, for every criticism there is about any major belief system, there are just as many virtues. I find it frustrating that people prefer to ignore the virtues and highlight the flaws. Its like missing the point. We would always find reasons to critisize anything different. If all trees looked the same and all food tasted the same, we would probably critisize each other about the way we stand or sit under those trees and the way in which we eat the same food. The finger pointing and critisizing just never ends.

If Jehovah was such a bad character, how does it explain all the good stuff that was credited to this guy? Would a militant angry god not just kill everyone and get replacements that are more obedient and more effective? Why pick 'normal' humans to be a slave race / nation (referring to hebrews) if he could just genetically engineer some giant bad-ass dudes, give them some tech that he has a killswitch for, and cause all the trouble he wants to? Why do it the way he has?

I'm sorry but the things you said in this post only raises more questions.

It would be very helpful if you could answer the concerns I raised here

infinity wrote:If Ra was a good guy as your post is implying, and he was known as Baal in nearby regions, why were children sacrificed by fire to him?

Maybe the sacrifices came later when Ra left and possibly some of his/its high priests thought it was a good idea to sacrifice a virgin for his name that the crops would grow and what ever you can think of a reasons, simple people are gullible easily and not to mention highly religious people. You say its a miracle when you see those seeds grow when you water that patch of dirt regularly and they simple people would believe that thing that it was a miracle and magical, because they are given only one piece of information and dont know/understand the real "science" behind it. Or then the heard/written stories are full of lies. Denigration is what negative people do to its enemies to win larger groups of people for their side with lies and deceit of the opposite side. Why not? Its a good tactic for anything that involves "service-to-self" matters and everyone has these aspects that you can find from yourself and its called an ego which is doing everything needed to stay on this material level, hence lower vibration levels both body and mind, maybe even in soul if so evil fellas like those negative entities are extremely negative in nature.

So now from this specific story we have two opposite explanations and its your time to choose which one to believe or both happening in different eras.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I would like to understand what daniel bases these deductions on, and I pointed out that theres a few things to consider and asked how those are accounted for in his suppositions. Thats the one part of my post.

The other part is related to the considerations I mentioned but is a bit of a context on its own too. The point is, its easy to find indicators that most 'gods' of legend did good and bad things. But if one says this one is a good guy and he's known here as this and there as that and here's all the good stuff they said about him - well, there's info that supports it but what about the stuff that reduces the credibility and reliability of the info? Are we not mentioning and considering those? Are we using choice (read bias or preference here) to decide what is good info we use to draw conclusions from, or are we basing it on thorough analysis and accounting for the stuff that doesnt seem to fit?

Its not what was said that i question, its whats not said. and no, its not about me to prefer this or that belief. its about getting the history and understanding it

infinity wrote:Daniel, please help me to understand something here. If Ra was a good guy as your post is implying, and he was known as Baal in nearby regions, why were children sacrificed by fire to him?

You actually THERE, and saw that happen? Wow. Or did you just believe what you were told?

When I was in the Yucatan, I asked about those "human sacrifices" in the sinkhole at Chichén Itzá. Not what you'd think--they were volunteers, trying to bring a message to the god of the underworld. As a reward for that effort, they got a permanent seat in Heaven. It was an honor, not a "sacrifice," with a line of devotees waiting to do it. Common practice in the old days, so I'd suggest you examine these rituals to see what was actually going on, before jumping to conclusions.

infinity wrote:When looking the name Baal up, its pretty obvious that this was a 'name' or 'title' used for many 'gods'. Some of these were bad dudes. How are you distinguishing Ra as Baal from all the other bad dudes as various Baals?

From information in The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (Smith).

In the old days, names were reused all the time. It is a constant source of frustration for genealogists, as well has historians. You also have to look at the structure of the native language being used. For example, Sumerian is cuneiform, Aztec is ideographic, etc., so when they are trying to identify someone, it is defined by that language form so you can end up with radically different names for the same reference.

For example, NIN-KHUR-SAG is the Greek Hera, the Roman Juno, The Norse Frigg, the Vedic Añjanā, the Mayan Ix Chel, the Aztec Tocî Yoalticitl, the Incan Pachamama, the Chinese Nu Kua, the Hebrew Mary, the Egyptian Isis, and the New Age "Gaia." What is in common... they are all expressions of "Mother Nature."

infinity wrote:I'm concerned about the validity of sources that this kind of historic research is based on.

So use pre-1950 books and ignore "Wikipedia." (IMHO, the largest source of BAD information on the planet.)

infinity wrote:If no compensation for these kind of changes are made, or method for validating their credibility, then why should we take these sources as viable facts?

You should NOT take them as viable "facts," but archetypal motifs, and then look for patterns.

infinity wrote:But why can't we use that same common sense before we look for evidence to condemn what we don't agree with or have the answers to? I mean, for every criticism there is about any major belief system, there are just as many virtues. I find it frustrating that people prefer to ignore the virtues and highlight the flaws. Its like missing the point. We would always find reasons to critisize anything different. If all trees looked the same and all food tasted the same, we would probably critisize each other about the way we stand or sit under those trees and the way in which we eat the same food. The finger pointing and critisizing just never ends.

Devout Christian, are thee? I'm not criticizing anyone or any religion, nor "condemning" anything, nor even looking for fault or flaw. Just simply pointing out where the mythological trail leads, from the Annunaki base camp.

infinity wrote:If Jehovah was such a bad character, how does it explain all the good stuff that was credited to this guy? Would a militant angry god not just kill everyone and get replacements that are more obedient and more effective?

Enlil flooded the Earth in an attempt to KILL all of mankind. And almost succeeded. Sound familiar? And BTW, it was the same "snake in the garden" that told Noah to build an Ark to escape the flood--Enki--because he knew what his brother was up to, and was not going to let him get away with it.

And it's not like that there is any kind of "Agenda 21" to depopulate humanity going on right now, is there?

infinity wrote:Why pick 'normal' humans to be a slave race / nation (referring to hebrews) if he could just genetically engineer some giant bad-ass dudes, give them some tech that he has a killswitch for, and cause all the trouble he wants to? Why do it the way he has?

Enlil could not just "genetically engineer some giant bad-ass dudes," unless you count sex, which Enlil was fond of, and DID produce a race of giant bad-ass dudes called the Nefilim... for actual engineering, he would have to get An's approval, first, and then Enki and Ninkhursag (the geneticists) would have to actually do the work. And they did not get along very well with Enlil. And they had terrible success with their first "giant dude", Lulu, which could not even reproduce on its own.

And they DID build in a "kill switch," which is why mankind was only "granted 120 years." Without that kill switch, man would be virtually immortal, save for accidental or deliberate death.

Enlil has done it "the way he has" because the other gods don't agree, and keep throwing a monkey wrench in his plans. Kind of like the way real patriots keep throwing a wrench in the New World Order.